Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Response on Marriage Amendment

June 4, 2012
The Journal

To the editor:

The Journal recently published a letter from a Ms. Jennica Date written in response to my letter of May 23. Ms. Date's letter touches on several arguments commonly made by advocates of same-sex marriage. I would like to respond.

First, the letter uses the language of emotions and victimhood to portray supporters of the Marriage Amendment as cruel and uncaring. They are accused of "bullying" and "harassing," provoking outrage and anger. Homosexuals are presumed to be innocent victims.

But homosexuals in America, taken as a group, are neither innocent nor victims. In our society they are free to practice their lifestyle free from harassment, in the privacy of their own homes.

The real victim in the homosexuals' quest for "marriage equality" is our society itself, especially the children. If homosexuals prevail, the relative stability that male/female marriage gives to society will be weakened, and our children and grandchildren will grow up in a society characterized by social chaos and moral uncertainty.

Second, same-sex marriage advocates often compare rejection of same-sex marriage to racial discrimination. Is this appropriate? Consider the following:

Racial discrimination involves pretending that there is a difference between two people where there is none. Pretending that there is an essential difference between a black person and a white person, and treating the two differently based on that false idea, is morally wrong and contradicts our founding principles.

Refusing to recognize same-sex unions as marriages, however, is different. When we say that man and woman are not freely interchangeable in marriage, we are not manufacturing a distinction where none exists. Instead, we are recognizing that there is a real, actual, essential distinction to be made between a man and a woman.

Although the distinction between man and woman has been set aside in the political sphere (voting, holding office, etc.), the distinction is still recognized in many civil statutes. For example, Congress has passed legislation protecting women (but not men) against violence. In a number of Supreme Court cases, the Court has upheld different treatment of males and females as being reasonable and compatible with Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Finally, Ms. Date predicts that in 40 years, after homosexual "marriage" has been legitimized, those who now oppose it will be considered "stupid."

I have a different prediction. If the Supreme Court one day overrules the American people on this issue, the next 40 years will be an expanded version of Roe v. Wade. The people will chafe under this extreme judicial tyranny, and the decision will be a source of constant social unrest.

How could it be anything else? People who care about their country cannot and will not sit idly by and do nothing when so great an injury is inflicted on the very institution on which society is founded.

Michael A.Thom

New Ulm

 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web